The Rebiblican Party
The repugnabiblicans.
I mean, I thought I summarized the State’s arguments already. Even if you don’t agree with it, it’s not hard to understand a State’s argument that marriage is the social contract under the aegis of which children are primarily conceived and brought into the world. Reproduction and the continuation of society is inarguably a compelling state interest. Same sex marriages cannot result in children (without outside assistance), thus the restricting of marriage to opposite sex couples is a reasonable means to achieve this.
Funny then that there is no fertility test for opposite sex marriage isn’t it?
That arguement should fail because the law allows infertile couples to marry. In California the law used to be (still is?) that the only issue is if you know yourself to be infertile that you must inform your partner before marriage. So by that logic, why are infertile people allow to marry?
ETA: Kind of ninja’d by seconds.
…as the Court will no doubt say when it overturns Griswold v. Connecticut.
I believe the proper term is “Rebiblican”.
Yes, and the primary concern of this is marriage is to protect the father’s estate for his own legitimate children. It isn’t really about the people involved in the marriage at all: historically, it was more or less set up to ensure the seamless transfer of property across the generations (by, along with social stigmata, controlling access to fertile women of the propertied classes).
The fact that most people had no real property to pass on, that most time spent married was outside of the childbearing years, the fact that many couples had no children… all of that is secondary. There’s no real reason why other types of infertile couples should not be allowed to marry, because it was never about society’s interest in producing children. People do that just fine without help. It was about producing legitimate children, and in the last fifty years the stigma around illegitimate children and extra-marital sex has weakened enormously. I don’t think even the most ardent Republicans can put those cats back in the bag.
Which might be even a little bit convincing if you could show where the state exercises this prerogative against any couples other than same-sex ones. Post-menopausal women are allowed to get married. Men with vasectomies are allowed to get married, as are women with hysterectomies. Marriages are not dissolved if the participants fail to reproduce, nor after the children reach their age of majority and leave the home.
Also, of course, homosexual people can (and do) have kids, through all the same ways straight people do. Which you dismissed with a parenthetical “without outside existence,” but you failed to justify why that should matter. If the state has an interest in producing more children, why should the state care if the children are produced through PiV sex or IVF?
Sorry, but this argument is unmistakably bullshit, just like every other argument against SSM. It’s a smokescreen to justify invidious discrimination.
Because no state has ever required opposite sex couples seeking to marry to undergo fertility testing as a precondition to doing so?
Fertility is an ever changing medical field and advances can sometimes change an infertile person to a fertile one.
well, the Obergefell court agreed with you. Let’s see if the current one continues to do so.
And??? That doesn’t, in any fucking way, answer the question.
Then how do you justify using fertility to bar same-sex couples from marrying?
What happened to “(without outside assistance)”? Or is this yet another example of a standard that existence solely to bar gay people from accessing marriage rights?
So you are saying that it is possible to ban gay marriage because people are born that way and don’t change, and that makes them easier to find?
IIRC, sometimes there’s a fertility test for opposite-sex marriage that only allows it if there’s infertility.
Y’all might want to look into Ms. Davis’ own chequered marital history.
If divorce was banned, she’d be SOL.
So you’d argue that healthcare is a fundamental human right?
IIRC, cousins.
What if the woman or man were castrated? Should they be barred from marriage?
Or blood feuds?